Hanretty: There's "plenty of time" for Bill Clinton "to be caught with his pants down"
During a conversation about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential bid and the impact that husband Bill Clinton will have on her run, Republican strategist Karen Hanretty asserted on the February 26 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, "David Geffen really, I think, signified the frustration that Democrats have with the recklessness of her husband, and there is plenty of time for him to be caught with his pants down between now and the primary election year." Hanretty was referring to Hollywood mogul David Geffen's reported comments in a New York Times interview (subscription required) with columnist Maureen Dowd, in which Geffen maintained: "Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."
Hanretty also claimed that Sen. Clinton "can be Swift Boated. She can -- 527s can go attack her, and Republicans can keep their hands clean of it," a reference to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), a 527 nonprofit group -- now known as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth -- that led a smear campaign against then-Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry (MA). Hanretty's statement that Sen. Clinton can be "Swift Boated" without Republican fingerprints highlights a pattern of the media's depiction of Republicans -- and, in the case of the SBVT, the Bush/Cheney campaign -- as remaining above the fray, without the media's noting that they nonetheless derive the benefit of surrogates' smears of their opponents. Regarding the SVBT itself, the media covered Bush and Cheney's repeated assertions of their admiration for Kerry's service in Vietnam, while the SBVT inflicted damage on Kerry with smears and falsehoods, which the media aired and reported, often uncritically.
From the February 26 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Boy, I think Hillary -- Jacob, I think Hillary as victim is her most successful posture. I mean, as Margaret Carlson once said, nobody has ever benefited more from sexual favors she herself did not dispense than Hillary Clinton. When her husband cheated on her, her numbers -- this is provable -- went straight up. Why wouldn't she want to talk about the pain she suffered as a female -- as a cuckold, basically, someone whose spouse cheated on her?
JACOB WEISBERG (Slate editor): Well, that's certainly not her political style, and it's hard to see that as a winning political strategy. But I think she's making a mistake here, and I think Democrats would be making a big mistake to listen to her. Because whatever they take off the table in the primaries is going to be a land mine waiting for her if she gets the nomination. And that includes whatever we find out about Bill's extracurricular activities, that includes talk of impeachment, just dealing with the whole issue of him being back in the White House.
And, as a political matter, I would say the Democrats would be much better off, and Hillary would probably be better off, lancing the boil. She is going to have to deal with it sooner or later, so better to deal with it sooner.
HANRETTY: And it's not Republicans, necessarily, who have to go after her in a general, if, in fact, she wins the primary. She can be Swift Boated. She can -- 527s can go attack her, and Republicans can keep their hands clean of it. So, one way or another, this will come up. But David Geffen really, I think, signified the frustration that Democrats have with the recklessness of her husband. And, look, there's plenty of time for him to be caught with his pants down between now and the primary election next year.
Recklessness of her husband?
Hmmm , interesting, I do not recall Bill Clinton starting a war with Iraq killing 3100 men and women along with numerous innocent Iraqis over lies. Is that not reckess?
Such is the power of the Clenis to mesmerize the minds of pundits...
You have a point Doris, but you just may get admonished for derailing this topic and not addressing the actual thread........oh, wait a minute.....no you won't.
I just took a line from her statement when she discussed "recklessness". But I get your point. It is one sided at times.
yes, facts can be one-sided...
I did not say anything about facts. Please do not suggest I said something that I did not.
wa wa wah wah?
Hanretty: There's "plenty of time" for Bill Clinton "to be caught with his pants down"
True.
Next?
Oh man! You nailed it. Who cares? This fascination/obsession with Bill C is astounding.
You know what Greek I think we should all be a lot more worried that There's "plenty of time" for George Bush to start a war with Iran than caring if Clinton's pants end up around his ankles...
That's the truth!
You got it, man. I, for one, am very worried at the prospect.
Ms. Hanretty,
You seem to be envious. Are you angry the Billster never looked twice at you? Also, I'll bet you've be caught with your pants down so what is the big deal?
No misinformation here, because Bill does in fact wear pants and sometimes they are down. Not to mention that pants have existed for thousands of years and "caught with his pants down" is an expression that's been around for far longer than the Clintons have been wearing pants, so Hanretty's use of the phrase has nothing at all to do with Bill's sex life. Why does MMFA have to pull the pants card all the time. This is just blatant pants baiting.
the sad part of that post is tommy will never realize you are parodying him...oh, wait now he might LOL
Actually, it was a 2-for-1 parody, the other being the over-caffeinated poster who insisted that anyone who took offense at the statement that Barack Obama would be hanged high was being oversensitive because the act of hanging predates slavery by thousands of years, and saying "hang them high" was just like saying "hang ten" because there was no suggestion that a literal lynching would take place.
Look, I can only take one poster's obsession with me at any one time......don't you start.
Whew.
Conservatives are obsessed with Bill Clinton's c*ck. Very revealing.
Okay now that's funny Rusty!
"Conservatives are obsessed with Bill Clinton's c*ck. Very revealing."
I wonder why? it must be fantastic, But it just shows the conservative's obsessetions with sex. Look at all thier largest issues Bill's sex life, gay marriage, abortion, sex education, etc.
The only ones that are not sexual are Global Warming and Iraq. (Oh wait, raping Iraqi women = sex, so only Global Warming).
Gotta agree in part - some are obsessed with Bill's sex life...but can you really blame them?.......he handed them his c*ck on a silver platter.
We must stop the politics of personal destruction.
-Bill Clinton
P.S. Where are all the chicks?
How? I mean, if we're going to go back down Memory Lane... why can't we blame the right for a six year hunting expedition to find one thing the Clintons did wrong, only to come up with a sad, kind of pathetic office affair?
Val, If you hand your opponent a sword, don't get upset if they use it..........the Clinton sex scandal would not have been a sex scandal if he had fessed up right away. Agree, it was ridiculous and the impeachment distraction a waste of time, but turn the tables and the Dems would act in kind.
Not so sure...Bush has handed them a machine gun, and they seem too squeamish to use it.
I was about to say...
The Clintons were 100% to blame for their problems. You can go down the list. They benefited from their problems because there was such an overload AKA "Clinton fatigue." Outrage was overwhelmed by "What next?"
What clock?
Sure. Clinton had so many bogus investigation and politically motivated lawsuits going against him that, yes, he got caught for doing a goodly number of his predecessors did. To paraphrase the great Jimmy James, Clinton had so many lawyers after him you'd think he had tobacco juice leaking out of his breast implants.
(For doing WHAT a goodly number...)
Bill's is not the "Dick" that's the problem in our country right now.
I don't know what was more repellently amusing, Carlson shuddering in obscene delight at the opportunity to delve into the seamy Clinton backstory as well as use the word cuckold, or Hanretty's (apropos) hope to see Slick Willy more intimately. Will she and the other Republicans be able, in her own words, to "keep their hands clean of it"? Break out the Lava soap...
Please Rusty refer to it by its proper name-Slick's wick.
Republicans have a fixation on lies about sex but very little concern on lies on national security.
Why not just bring the show to the RNC offices? They desperately want Hillary's campaign to be about Bill. Anything to divert attention away from Bush's Iraq fiasco. Here's what's important to Hanretty and her right-wing apologists: where's Bill and what's he doing with his pants. And which candidate has the nicest-looking wife and kids. Never mind the tens of thousands dead in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It just never stops. Just as Evangelicals need the myth of Satan to scare their children into compliance, so does the GOP need the spectre of Bill Clinton as first husband to keep their neanderthal base frightened and drooling.
We all are well aware of your non-beliefs, but for you to bash Christians in nearly every post with no relevance to the topic is curious - and kind of weird.
Your viewpoint is well respected without that.
If you don't like Nerzog's comment, why don't you just flag it?
It seems like to me there is a link (that is exploited by the Republicans) between their Evangelical base and supposed "superior" morals such that they feel they can pass judgment anytime they want. Never mind the fact that a lot of them are hypocrites. Their (Evangelicals) obsession/fear/hatred of anything sexual or sexually suggestive tied into the Republican parties' alleged "moral superiority" was what I thought Nerzog was alluding to. If there wasn't such a link why would Hanretty even bother with the "caught with his pants down" remark.
Sounds like she was just reinforcing/speaking to the base.
I don't flag comments, it's not my job.
Actaully... it kind of is.
I am a capitalist, I don't do anything for free.
Really? Then that brings to mind the question of who is paying you for all the rightwing propaganda and obstructionism
Swift Boat Veterans for Why Is This Post Here
Change SBV for SVU Driving Republicans and I think you have a winner.
SVU?? That's a "Law & Order" series, isn't it???
So you admit to being paid to troll this website, then?
He did call me "unprofessional" the other day, which made me wonder why he would think that somebody would be paid to post here.
If you believe that my posts are worthy of financial reward, then I am very flattered........thank you.
Hey dont feel THAT flattered SOMEONE pays Michelle Malkin
Oh I forgot, does THIS post mean you DO, do some things for free?
Honey, I do plenty for free :)
But I should be charging, if ya know whatta I mean?
Then you misspoke when you said you dont do anything for free? Then Val has his point back in play.
Quit bragging about your comfortable chin, Tommy.
I am a capitalist, I don't do anything for free.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So I assume every word you post here is getting paid by someone. Who is that? Soros? MMFA? I guess not.
Tommy, I may be a little weird, no doubt. Religion is my hot-button issue, just like MMFA wasting time on irrelevant topics seems to be yours. But, you are correct, it was gratuitous on my part...I just have a hard time resisting the temptation to take a dig at the Troglodytes whenever possible. Sort of like these talking heads taking a dig at the Clintons whenever possible.
Point taken - and not all people of faith entangle themselves with religious fanatics, they are a completely different breed and the distinction is important. From my point of view.
I agree. Some of my best friends are Christians...of the more liberal variety. I do have several more conservative friends, or acquaintances, and I honestly believe that I am more tolerant of their views than they would be of mine if they knew them.
I have noticed that, what I wonder is what about us religious people who are NOT Troglodytes? Personally I dont care that much what people believe about God, but you and I are on the same page for the most part politically and it doesnt occur to you that such gratuitous attack on a religion I beleive in might offend people me? That therea are plenty of people like me basically with you on most issues that might take offense at such posts? I dont get offended easily that others believe differently than I do but some lefty Christians might not feel the same way.
Admittedly, that is a problem. True, not all Christians are troglodytes, but they do share the same basic beliefs. I happen to think those beliefs are based on fairy tales, but I respect a person's right to believe them. What I don't respect are the hamhanded attempts by some to codify those beliefs into law, especially when their intention is to curtail the rights and/or privileges of others. Sometimes, in showing my contempt for these people and what they are trying to foist upon us, I may offend others who hold those same beliefs.
Being the cynical bastard that I am, I find it more important to offend the easily -offended troglodytes than to avoid offending those who may agree with me on other issues. Think of it as a character flaw. As I am a person who is difficult to offend, I tend to regard it as a matter of little importance. Nothing personal.
Nerzog,
Only two hours to deviate from your second of my statement in the other thread: "Judge the believer's action, not his beliefs."
I too struggle against my inner sanctimony. Patience, patience, after all, THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO. :)
Well, to be honest, I was seconding your statement. "And keep them all the hell (an expression - not an actual place) away from my Constitution."
But I get your point.
An apology for a generalization instead excuses and blathering.
Commendable my friend.
I think certain people could learn a lesson from this, but for some strange reason, I doubt that they will.
"True, not all Christians are troglodytes..."
Ohhh, no... not ANOTHER Christian sect!
Do not persecute us, Irony!
We TRoglodytes have every right to practice our faith based on the belief that "Wild Thing" was the bitchinest song ever recorded!
Screw the Them-itarians !
Gratuitous or not, he did specifically target "evangelicals," and not all Christians.
True, a salient point that. Its all academic, personally I dont really get offended because others dont believe as I do nor at what they think about what I believe and am in total agreement with keeping religion far FAR from the constitution.
It wasn't gratuitous. You made a statement about evangelicals specifically, and accurately I might add. The taboo of criticizing religion is over. Keep it up.
Agree.......everyone is growing tired of ridiculing aimless liberals, it's been done to death and it's too easy.
Aimless liberals? Who's that? Maynard G. Krebs? All of the people who rightfully respond to your posts aren't aimless.
There was no bash in that post. Read it again.
It's a perfect analogy, to compare the way that sideshow religion uses satan to frighten and gather their flock, to the way that the RNC invokes former president Clinton, for their political purposes.
And your use of the word "spectre" was dead on... very good I say.
As for the general campaign the RNC is headlong into, against the Senator from NY... and the "spectre" of her husband they seem too eager to raise:
I'm convinced. The Senator from NY is officially the Democratic candidate for president, that most frightens the RNC.
No doubt about it... it's official.
And I say the RNC is too eager to raise the "spectre" of Mr. Clinton, because they apparently forget the man's popularity with the American People... they seem to play his name like a trump card, in a game where they've misunderstood what suit is trump.
And the more the true demon, George W. Bush, haunts the American People, the more they do fondly recollect former president Clinton.
Truth.
Not really that weird. Consider it's counterpart - the person who injects Jesus into every sentence. You've seen and heard plenty of them.
In this case, though, an evangelistic demon is a handy analogy to the assertion of the post. So, not so curious, either.
Your condescension at the end was nice of you, though. :-)</irony>
Read it again, my comment about Nerzog's well respected opinion was not condescention at all. Ask Nerzog, he knows it was not.
But thanks for playing - now that's condescending.
Fairly ineffective condescension. Most folks don't hold game-show hosts in high regard to begin with. And as we all know, condescension requires the one doing the condescending hold a higher place in esteem from which they figuratively lower themselves to the level of the one to which they're being condescending. And we all happen to already know you're a conservative...
Now you're being condescending to Pat Sakak and Vanna White, you better apologize.......and many hold game show hosts in very high regard. As for liberals, well that's another matter............
I forgot about Vanna.
I...
I am shamed.
"She can be Swift Boated."
Of course that nice young man, Sean Hannity, isn't saying he would want that to happen to Hillary Clinton. I'm certain, like all Americans (especially Republicans... who are REAL Americans), Sean Hannity just wants to see a clean and fair campaign... none of this personal destruction and attacks. Sigh....
OKAY... EVERYBODY BACK TO REALITY! ;>)
You want to see a swift boat? Watch what some mysterious 527 does to romney and his religion based on the missing gold tablets and invisible planets. Robertson, Falwell, Dobson and purpose driven truth for justice, or something along those lines. The evangelical pulpits have demonized the Mormons for over 100 years, it aint gonna stop now.
Here's the question; what will those baboons will do if Romney actually gets the nomination? WooHoo! How will the troglodytes reconcile that?
Well duh? An independent Buchanan/Robertson ticket? When did you get so dense?
Now that would be fun to watch!
And it would give those 31% who still think dimwit is da man someone to vote for. Would vice president Pat be playing diplomacy with Iran? Hellfire boy, let them B-2 dogs hunt!!
Here's another question, if Mitt knows ( Mormon men are working with the promise that they, too, will eventually become gods and be given a planet of their own to populate ) he's eventually going to get his own planet, can we be sure he has this planet's best interests at heart? If push came to shove, and there was credible evidence that his planet was harboring alien terrorist training camps, would he invade them and put the terrorists in a secret prison on Kolob? Enquiring minds want to know.
Hey...are you making fun of Mormons?
Well, yes. But I am voluntarally withdrawing from this sub sub deputy adjunct thread, because it is to easy to make fun of Mormons, and you have to admire their work ethic and tenacity. Until they have 50 kids, Mormons make the best neighbours.
I find it difficult to praise a religion that has a founder that believed that "brown" people are evil and cursed by god.
Why are liberals always so intolerant of someone else's intolerance? Can't we all just get along? And by that I mean can't you damned liberals and you silly brown people just stop pointing out things like the inherent racism/sexism/whateverism of certain religions?
Rent "The Magdalene Sisters" and write off the entire Catholic church. The pedophile priest scandal was not a unique nasty aspect of that church.
Good movie. Those "schools" were messed up.
"You want to see a swift boat?"
Hey, Pith... I agree. As much lip-service as some of these guys are giving in denouncing the 527s and personal attack politics I'm not buying. The 527s may be even more audacious this time... of course, though, it will be only in the interest of highlighting the differences in the candidates. Yea, right...
I'm waiting for a Swiftboat Group to start saying Mitt Romney lied to get his five medals in Viet Nam. But wait... Romney wasn't in Nam and couldn't have won any medals, right? By the time Romney has to explain all that the damage will have been done and the goobers who watch FOX News will be calling Romney another John Kerry. Of course, I'm exaggerating, but...
You wanna know why there will be more Swiftboating? Because it worked last time.
Now that Ann Coulter has completely disredited and embarassed herself with the majority of the population, this Karen Hanretty is next in line to be the bitching republican babe, who is trotted out to bash whatever or whoever needs bashing. Check out
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid%3A34246
for a nice left slanted (meaning accurate) story.
No surprise that she doesn't want to hold political office; she's already making a fortune lying for the GOP...why take a pay cut?
Jealousy...?
Was it Tammy Bruce or somebody who recently opined (as reported here on MMFA) some pop psychology theory that some of Bush's more outspoken critics had issues with their fathers which they were subconsciously directing towards Bush?
Well, I've got my theory... Sean Hannity is jealous of Bill Clinton. As fawning as Sean's female fans are, he acts as though (and I have no evidence whatsoever to say otherwise) he remains faithful to his wife. But you can tell by the way he talks to female callers on his show in his boyishly charming and flirtatious way that Sean really digs female attention.
Bill Clinton (once a fat, poor kid from a small rural town) grew up to be President of the United States... the most powerful man on earth. As reluctant as I am to use Henry Kissinger as a source for anyrhing, Kissinger, in his powerful heyday, when he was dating movie stars, once quipped that "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac"... and having never been in that sort of position of power I have no evidence to dispute him. Apparently Bill Clinton is kind of a babe magnet (although maybe his judgment and eyesight are poor in his tastes in women) and there is a documented history that this former fat country boy took advantage of his newly discovered attractiveness to the ladies that his rise in politics brought.
My theory is that Sean Hannity is intensely jealous of Bill Clinton... and it's not on a subconscious level, either. I can imagine Sean's whining thoughts about how "It's not fair.. that liberal scum Clinton gets to fool around and have fun while all I can do is flirt."
Sorry, dude... you ain't in the big leagues.
BTW, I'm not actually a psychologist per se. It's just a hobby. ;>)
And when we return more from Below the Beltway.
umm, Bill's been out of office for years... it's time for consternos to pick a new scapegoat...
when Bill got caught with his pants down, it was in the bedroom... whereas, Bush was in the war room (in which you can't fight) when he lost his drawers... which is worse?
Who cares about Bill Clinton's pants? What about Juanita Broderick's lip? I hope Bill didn't leave her with a scar.